1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The grounds for the court’s explanation concerning the instant case, such as accepting the judgment of the court of first instance, are the same as the part of the judgment of the court of first instance (except for the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance) in addition to revising the corresponding part as follows 2. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of

2. The 3th 10 to 4th tier on the modified part shall be as follows:

Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State requires that “military persons, etc. have sustained wounds in the performance of their duties or education and training directly related to national security or the protection of people’s lives and property.” Article 2(1)2 of the Act on the Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation requires that “military persons, etc. have sustained wounds in the performance of duties or education and training not directly related to national security or the protection of people’s lives and property” as the requirements for the military police officers wounded in disaster. In short, although there are differences in the performance of duties or education and training, it is required that persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State or persons eligible for veteran’s compensation have sustained wounds in the performance of duties or education and training.” This means that there is a proximate causal relation between the performance of duties or education and training of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and the injury or disease (However, in the case of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State, it is not sufficient simply

In addition, the causal relationship between performance of duties, etc. and injury should be attested by the party asserting such causal relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Du5617, Sept. 23, 2003; 2010Du9938, Sept. 9, 2010).